1. ' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner was appointed in B.P.S. 16 by respondents on 17-5-1982. Subsequently the petitioner was promoted to B.P.S 18 in June, 1993. The petitioner was appointed by the respondent as Regional Director in his own pay and scale on 11-11-1996. The respondents suspended the petitioner vide order dated 12-8-2000. The petitioner challenged the vires of the aforesaid order in Constitutional Petition No,18346 of 2000 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 15-9-2000. The writ petition was disposed of as not maintainable and is premature. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned order of suspension that the respondent had no authority whatsoever under the law to continue the suspension order for indefinite period.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Punjab Small Industries Corporation was created and established vide Punjab Industries Corporation Act, 1973, therefore, respondent No,1 is controlled and is bound to act within the parameters prescribed by the aforesaid Act. The aforesaid Act repealed Punjab Small Industries Corporation Ordinance, 1972. The officers and employees of the defunct Corporation under the provisions of the aforesaid Ordinance are considered to be employees of respondent No,1 on such terms and conditions as may be determined by the Government by virtue of section 36 of the said Act. Government has power to frame rules under section 40 qua the employees who were appointed under the provisions of the Corporation Act, 1973 inter alia on the following items:
(i) The manner and form of keeping the accounts of the Corporation;
(ii) Recruitment of officers, advisors and other employees of the Corporation.
(iii) Recruitment of officers, advisors and other employees of the Corporation.
(iv) Functions of the advisors.
2. ' The Board has also power to frame regulations under section 41 with the previous approval of Government for all matters not provided for in the rules for which provision is necessary for carrying out the purpose of this Act and the rules. The word 'Board' means the Board of Members of the Corporation by virtue of section 2(a). The Government has not framed any rules qua the terms and conditions of the employees of the Corporation under the provisions of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act, 1973 under section 40 till date. The action of the respondents is without lawful authority. The respondents had framed the rules under section 36 vide notification, dated 8th March, 1979 under the name and style the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Service and Recruitment Rules, 1976. These Rules are not applicable in case of petitioner as these rules are applicable to the officer and employees of defunct Corporation which were appointed before the promulgation of this Act. He further submits that Government adopted the Punjab Civil Servants vide notification, dated 2-11-1981 under section 36 of the atwcsaid Act, therefore, Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 is not applicable in Lase of petitioner. He further submits that Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules of 1975 are repealed by the competent authority vide Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999. He relied upon rule 6, sub-para.(1) which reveals the competent authority can suspend the officer/employee for three months and the competent authority can extend the suspension order after every three months with approval of the authority. The respondents admitted in their report and parawise comments in para.3 ground (a) that suspension order was passed by the competent authority which did not require any renewal or extension after completion of after every three months. He further submits that respondents accepted in para.2 of report that the competent authority had adopted Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 contained in section 36 of the Punjab Small Industries Act, 1973 vide notification, dated 8th March, 1979. He further submits that authorised officer has been eliminated by the competent authority for expeditious disposal of disciplinary cases under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules vide notification dated 21st June, 1999. He further submits that suspension order must have been extended after every three months with the prior approval of the authority as is envisaged by rule 6 of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. He further submits that the respondents concealed the material facts from this Court in their report and parawise comments. The respondents had amended the rules under section 40 of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act, 1973 as is evident from notification, dated 28th May, 1990 which is placed on record by the learned counsel of the petitioner. He further submits that suspension for about ten months without furnishing any plausible explanation by the respondents is result of exercising power by the respondents in arbitrary and without lawful authority. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1957 Lahore 487 (Syed Muhammad Ayyub v. The Government of West Pakistan). He further submits that respondents had no authority under the law to issue a suspension order of the petitioner for an indefinite period as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1959 Karachi 282 (Allauddin v. Chief Commissioner). He also relied upon PLD 1979 Note 80 at p.56 (Mian. Munawar-ud-Din v. Federation of Pakistan). He further submits that respondents have only authority to pass impugned order against the petitioner for charges of subversion, corruption or mis-conduct and not for charge of inefficiency. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1979 Lahore 644 (Mian Munawar-ud-Din v. Federation of Pakistan).
3. He further submits that it is condition precedent for passing suspension order with prior approval of the competent authority. In the present case, the respondents failed to get prior approval of the competent authority, therefore, suspension order for indefinite period is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he relied upon the aforesaid case of Mian Munawar-ud-Din. He further submits that respondents have no authority whatsoever to pass the suspension order with retrospective effect. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1965 SC 106 (Government of West Pakistan through Secretary, Irrigation, Communication and Works Department and another v.
4. Nisar Ahmad Khan).
5. ' The learned counsel of the respondents submits that rules framed by the competent authority under section 36 is not applicable in the present case then the writ petition is not maintainable on the well-known principle of master and servant. In support of his contention he relied upon PLD 1984 SC 194 (Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan) 1995 PLC (C.S.) 89 (Munir Latif Raja v. Multan Development Authority) PLD 1961 SC 531 (Messrs Malik and Haq and another v.
6. Muhammad Shamsul Haq Islam Chaudhry). He further submits that action of the respondents is in accordance with law, Rules and Regulations of the respondents. The order of suspension was passed by the competent authority, therefore, same should he remained in the field till the completion of the inquiry proceedings as is evident from provisions of rule 6( I I of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. In support of his contention he relied upon 1988 PLC (C.S.) 31 (Mian Ghulam Nabi v. The Government of the Punjab 'HeaIth Department). He further submits that Punjab Small Industries Corporation and Recruitment Rules, 1976 are applicable to all persons holding post under the Corporation by virtue of Rules I to 3. He further submits that Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 was adopted by the competent authority vide notification, dated 2nd November, 1981. The subsequent amendment or repeal of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 vide Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline)
7. Rules, 1999 cannot be read the later rules in case of officers/employees of the Corporation which was not adopted by the competent authority qua the employees of respondent No, I. He further submits that petitioner has placed on record notification, dated 28th May, 1990 relates to amendment in the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Service and Recruitment Rules under section 40 of the Punjab Small Industries Act, 1973, therefore, the Rules of 1976 are applicable in case of the petitioner.
8. ' I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. I would like to first decide whether the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 are applicable in case of the petitioner or not. It is admitted position that Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules were adopted by the competent authority vide notification dated 2nd November, 1981 qua the officer/ employee of respondent No,1 .
9. The competent authority did not adopt the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 till date. The question arises which of these two rules are applicable in case of the petitioner after repeal of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by this Court in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v.
10. Chairman, Punjab Appellate Tribunal (PLD 1979 Lah. 415) and the relevant observations are as follows: "The above provision, however, even on face of it, does not have any application to the case in hand. It would be attracted only if the adopted statute is not only repealed but also re-enacted with or without modification subject, of course, to a contrary intention being statutorily expressed. It is in that case that the re-enacted provision would apply to the adopting law. Reliance is placed on the view taken in Moosa Kazimi v. K.M. Sheriff AIR 1959 Mad.
11. 542."
12. '"The rule of interpretation to be inferred from all the references quoted above is--
(a) when a statute adopts a part or all of another statute by specific or descriptive reference the adoption takes the statute as it exists at that time and the adopted provisions with necessary adaptations if any became a part of the adopting statute as if it was written down in it;
(b) any subsequent addition to or modification of the adopted statute, can be included in the adopting statute only if so expressly or impliedly provided in the adopting statute;
(c) when particular sections of an earlier statute are expressly incorporated into a late statute the other sections of the earlier statute may be referred to in order to resolve any ambiguity or obscurity that A may arise in its interpretation of that section;
(d) when the adopting statute refers to law generally which governs a particular subject, the reference in such a case includes not only the law in force at the date of-adopting act but all subsequent laws on the particular subject referred to, insofar as they are consent with the adopting law;
(e) when Legislature in adopting the procedural provisions of another Act, made substitutions in certain instances, it will be inferred that in matters not specified no substitutions were intended."
13. In view of the aforesaid judgment the latter rules are not applicable in case of the petitioner. To resolve the present controversy between the parties Rule 6(1)(a) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules is reproduced hereunder: "6. Procedure to be observed by the Authorised Officer. ---In a case where civil servant is accused of suspension by authority, or with the prior approval of the authority, by the Authorised Officer, or he may be required by the Authorised Officer to proceed on leave: ' Provided that the continuation of suspension or grant of any extension in leave shall require the prior approval of Authority after every three months."
14. ' The aforesaid rules clearly reveal that in case the order of suspension is passed by the authority then question of extension of suspension order does not arise. In the present case the impugned order is passed by the authority as is evident from the impugned order dated 12-8-2000. It is pertinent to mention here that when the civil servant is suspended then he was allowed only basic salary and deprived him all other benefits like residential, telephone etc. In view of Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules; Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules and all the parallel Rules were declared repugnant of Injunctions of Islam under Article 203-G(3) (a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1991 Pakistan Supreme Court Cases FSC 1134 (I.A. Sherwani v Government of Pakistan).
15. Now the Government servant is entitled to the full salary alongwith other benefits. In this view of the matter, the old view is no more in the field and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law coupled with the fact that in case of the petitioner in view of Rule 6 of Punjab (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 the extension of suspension order is not required. The basic order of suspension would remain in the field till completion of the inquiry proceeding against him. The 2nd contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Rules are not framed under section 40 of the Punjab Small Industries Corporation Act, 1973 then it means that respondent did not pass the impugned order in violation of any Rules and Regulations of respondent No,1 . In this view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (1984 SCMR 433). In absence of the statutory Rules of the respondent-Corporation the writ petition is also not maintainable as pa principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ch. Abdur-Rashid's case PLD 1979 Lahore 803).
16. ' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.